Definitions of forgiveness vary, but most include two key elements: 1) intentionally letting go of negative emotions, such as anger and hostility, towards the offender; and 2) intentionally cultivating positive emotions, such as compassion and benevolence, towards the offender. Some definitions also involve seeking contact with rather than avoiding the offender.

Forgiveness advocates emphasize that forgiveness is not the same as excusing or condoning an offense, nor should it involve putting oneself in a position to be harmed again. Supporting this perspective, some research suggests that forgiveness can deter offenders from repeating their offenses. In one set of studies, participants reported that they would be less likely to repeat a transgression against a stranger who had forgiven as opposed to not forgiven them, and another set of studies found similar results in married couples.

Some have proposed that forgiveness could deter repeated offenses because of the norm of reciprocity, which dictates that positive acts (like forgiveness) should be reciprocated with positive acts (like avoiding repeating the offense). Others have countered, however, that the positive act of forgiveness may be reciprocated by a positive act that is not directly related to the offense, such as giving a gift.

In fact, research suggests that forgiveness may in some cases increase the likelihood of revictimization. A recent longitudinal study of newlywed couples found that spouses who expressed forgiveness more readily experienced steady rates of psychological and physical aggression from their partners over a four-year period, whereas less forgiving spouses experienced a decrease in aggression. Related studies have shown that more forgiving spouses are more likely to experience declines in relationship satisfaction over time if their partners frequently engage in negative behaviors, and that forgiveness can erode forgivers’ self-respect if offending partners have not made sufficient amends. Furthermore, in a daily diary study, spouses were more likely to report being the victim of a transgression on days after they reported forgiving their partner, compared to other days.

Why might forgiveness fail to reduce problematic behaviors?

According to theories of operant learning, people are less likely to engage in negative behaviors if these behaviors have adverse consequences. By reducing adverse consequences such as criticism and isolation, forgiveness may remove an important source of motivation for offenders to change. Supporting this perspective, one study of romantic partners found that direct expressions of anger and criticism were associated with increases in partners’ willingness to make positive changes.

Some degree of anger may also have benefits for victims as it can motivate them to steer clear of a potentially dangerous person. This is especially important in cases of intimate partner violence, where giving a violent partner a second chance could put one’s life at risk. Although forgiveness need not entail reconciliation, research suggests that people who forgive violent partners may be more likely to stay in the relationship.

Forgiveness may also have a dark side when it comes to correcting social inequality. Some research suggests that encouraging members of disadvantaged groups to forgive groups that have discriminated against and harmed them may reduce their motivation to address social inequality. In one study, indigenous Australians who were encouraged to think of an injustice perpetrated against them (the Stolen Generations) in a way that fostered forgiveness (i.e., appealing to common humanity) reported being less willing to engage in collective action on behalf of their group—this included willingness to participate in a peaceful demonstration aimed at improving the position of indigenous Australians and volunteering their time to help people in indigenous communities.

Forgiveness may quell destructive desires for revenge and retaliation, but at the same time it may reduce feelings of anger and frustration that can be channeled constructively into social change. Efforts to foster forgiveness for historic and current injustices may be most effective when they are joined together with equally strong efforts to attain justice.

The likelihood that forgiveness will promote or impede positive change, whether in close relationships or on a broader scale, depends on a number of factors, including the severity of the offense, the number of times it has been repeated, and efforts of the offending party to make amends. If an offense is severe, repeated or prolonged, and the offender does not take responsibility or try to correct their behavior, forgiveness may be less likely to elicit positive change and may be more likely to put a victim in danger.

For many people, forgiveness can bring great relief and peace, but for others it may not be the best solution. Alternative ways to cope with victimization that don’t require forgiveness include practicing self-compassion (recognizing the injustice one has suffered and offering kindness to oneself), mindfulness (allowing oneself to feel hurt and angry), and connecting with and offering support to other victims. Sometimes giving oneself permission not to forgive—without feeling a sense of moral failure—can be just as liberating as choosing to forgive.

I appreciate this article, particularly as the common social expectation is to forgive and forget with no thought for the effect on the victim or whether it actually has any effect for the better. In some cases being urged to forgive can cause more harm to the victim and can be deeply offensive. For example, asking a mother to forgive a man who has murdered her child can be an insult to both the mother and the child. I think a better concept is 'acceptance'. This allows a person to move on with their lives without the need to forgive if that's not right for them or the circumstances. I also agree that anger can be a positive emotion when it leads to action that can change lives for the better.

When a bully or other criminal apologizes, especially when it apologizes after being told to, it isn't an expression of empathy or remorse. The bully is testing whether or not the victim has accepted his or her rightful place as the bully's subordinate.

If the one who needs to be forgiven isn't remorseful, doesn't confess, doesn't change their behavior, doesn't make amends or restitution, (or at least start to do those) then it should be a deal breaker, or at least change the closeness of the relationship.

My definition of forgiveness is very specific. To me, forgiveness is a transaction between two people, and it doesn't necessarily involve reconciliation, but can.

In order for forgiveness to be granted, the offender must first ask for forgiveness from the person he or she offended.

The offender must openly admit that he or she has actually done or said something offensive and show that he or she understands clearly WHY the words or the act was offensive.

The offender must then show sincere remorse, by offering to atone in some way for the offensive act or statement.

The offended party then has the option to grant forgiveness, or not.

So if the offender never asks for forgiveness, or even worse, continues to engage in the hurtful, negative, destructive talk or behavior, then there is no reason to consider granting forgiveness.

The act of removing oneself emotionally, physically, or both, from an offensive or abusive person or situation: just escaping in order to protect yourself from further abuse isn't forgiveness, its just "letting go" of desiring revenge; its just detachment. The offended party simply goes forward in a healthy direction, that's all. There is neither forgiveness nor revenge, just a letting go and a desire to leave the abusive person or situation in the past.

I can see where either detachment or actual forgiveness can be useful and healthy, depending on the circumstances, and I agree that insisting that an abused person forgive their abuser is actually abusive in and of itself.

Forgiveness can't be demanded, it can only be given with free will. If forgiveness is coerced OR if its granted "unconditionally": without any admission of guilt or any atonement from the offender , then its an empty, meaningless gesture.

I understand your view of forgiveness, and I think a lot of people would agree with you. But not me.

Here's why: If someone deeply wrongs me I want to be able to move past it all on my own. I think that healing (which letting go is part of) IS the core of forgiveness. It doesn't depend at all on the person who committed the wrong. When I've healed from the wrong I may still think the person who did it is cruel and uncaring, I may still be afraid of them, but I won't think about them much except maybe how to remain safe. I won't even hope awful things will happen to them.

Forgiveness like that is mine. It's for me. If you're a decent person and you wronged me, it'll make you happy to know that you didn't cause irreparable harm. If you're not a decent person, you'll be mad and insist that I haven't really forgiven you because things haven't gone back to the way they were.

Seems to me that my definition of "detachment" (just letting go of a person/situation and moving on out of self-protection, but with no thoughts of revenge) is the same as your definition of "forgiveness", so, in that aspect we are essentially saying the same thing. Its all cool!